linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] timekeeping: Force upper bound for setting CLOCK

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:26:07 +0100
From:   Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        Hongbo Yao <yaohongbo@...wei.com>,
        Xiongfeng Wang <wangxiongfeng2@...wei.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] timekeeping: Force upper bound for setting CLOCK_REALTIME

On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 11:36:19AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> It is reasonable to force an upper bound for the various methods of setting
> CLOCK_REALTIME. Year 2262 is the absolute upper bound. Assume a maximum
> uptime of 30 years which is plenty enough even for esoteric embedded
> systems. That results in an upper bound of year 2232 for setting the time.

The patch looks good to me.

I like this approach better than using a larger value closer to the
overflow (e.g. one week) and stepping the clock back automatically
when the clock reaches that time, but I suspect it might possibly
break more tests (or any unusual applications messing with time) as a
much larger interval is now EINVAL.

Thanks,

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar